(Before Mr V. G. Day, S.M.)
Arrears of Maintenance,
E. It. King (Mr Acland), proceeded against Benjamin Aldridge, claiming £42 7s 6d, arrears for support oi: an illegitimate child.' . . Defendant stated that three years ago he had ceased paying, believing the child was dead. He had received no notice from them until he received a summons 'lor £42 7s 6d. Had he received a request for payment earlier, he could have met it, but he could not pay £42. At the greatest he had not earned more than £6 during' the past six months. Ho thought he would, be able to pay 7s Gd per week off the order.
Mr Acland asked for security
A formal order for one month's im r prisoninent was made, the wan-ant to be suspended provided the ordinary payment of 5s per week was kept up, and 2s 6d, per week paid off-the ar-" rears, and defendant was .ordered to find a surety for future payments.' " ! Breach of Prohibition Order. Thomas Atkinson failed to .appear to" answer an adjourned charge of a breach of a prohibition order. After Constable Turner had given, evidence,-*» fine of'ss and costs was, imposed. . By-Law Cases. John Bladder (Borough Council's Inspector)' charged Harold Jackson with cycling on the footpath in East Street. Defendant pleaded guilty, and was fined os, with costs. Bert Jessop did not appear to answer a- similar charge, and was similarly fined. Upland Williams pleaded guilty to cycling in Cass Street without a light, and was convicted and discharged. Patrick Cairns did not appear v to answer a like charge, and a fine of 10s and costs was imposed. Herbert Philpott was charged with riding a motor cycle without a light. He failed to appear, and was fined 10s and costs. Jack Frew was fined 10s and costs for I cycling after sunset without' a light, 1 and William Pannell was similarly charged, and a like penalty was imposed. Creating a Disturbance. Frank Campbell and Stanley Gourdie were charged with threatening behaviour in the Ashburton Domain on February 19. The former defendant did not appear. John Readhead, Curator of the Ashburton Domain, stated that on February 19 a picnic had been held in the ■Domain. Witness noticed a disturbance and approached a group of men, and found two fighting. They desisted: when remonstrated with. - ■ Defendant stated that he had thrown ■ a lollie at a young man named Camp- , bell, ahd ho had taken it badly, and started fighting. , '■ His Worship remarked that Caniptyell was really the aggressor; throwing a lollie at anyone was common at picnics. , Sergeant Emerson stated that some years ago Campbell had had a brick thrown at him, and it had injured his head, and since then anything thrown at him annoyed him.
After a caution to Gourdie had been administered, both defendants.were convicted and discharged. '
Defence Act Cases
A number of charges of breaches of the Defence Act were dealt with.
A charge against Nicholas Edward Fitzgerald was adjourned for a fortnight. / An adjourned charge against John Smith was further adjourned..
Cases against Frederick Totty, Thomas Morris, Clifford Bramley, and Alexander Dorm were dismissed.
Charges against Henry Gudsell, Edward William Newman (Mr Kennedy), and Thomas Nieholl were adjourned to May 25, and one against Alexander Jamieson was adjourned, for a fortnight. A Partnership Dispute. Hugh Quinn (Mr Orbell) claimed £52 10s 7d from Charles Quirk (Mr Buchanan), money alleged to be due as part of the value of a carrier's business. Mr Orbell explained that plaintiff and defendant had dissolved partnership, and the sum owing was claimed by,, his client as the value of his share. There wore some small amounts upon which plaintiff and defendant could not agree. John' William Bowden, an account-! ant, stated that he had' made a balancesheet regarding the business, showing the value. He had understood that Quirk was to take over the business, and to pay^Quinn £54 15s lOd, less' one or two small had debts. It\ was thoroughly understood that Quinn from that time should put on his coat, and not do any more work in connection with the business, and since then Quirk had carried it on by himself. By Mr Buchanan: The amount of £54 15s lOd was agreed on, subject to ia. few small adjustments. ,Mr Buchanan contended that the case could not he dealt with at a Magistrate's Court, as the amount involved was over £200.
After argument, his Worship said, that he was of opinion that he had jurisdiction, an agreement- having been, arrived at so that the only money involved'was the amount of the claim.
Re-examined toy Mr Buchanan, the. witness Bowden «aid that' bad . and J doubtful debts hud been spoken of. He did not remember anything .being said of the* cost of collecting debts being' allowed for. There had been disputes as to the ownership of a stack of hay and two piano cases. Quirk had said that the arrangement was that Quinn was to go out of the partnership, and ho (Quirk) was to pay him £50. Quinn had afterwards told him the same thing. 1-lugh Quinn stated that ho had,received an offer of £50 cash for_ his share of the business, but was' ' riot satisfied with it, and Mr Bowtlen had been asked to value the business. A stack of hay on the. premises had been given to witness For himself, and he had carted it there: it was valued at £2, and he would be willing to let defendant have, il if he paid £1 for it. Of-the two piano cases, one had beon give)i to witness, «r"1 the other was what had contained liis own piano. By Mr Buchanan: ' Quinn was to take all the partnership assets after paying £54. The stack of hay was not a partnership asset.
Charles Quirk .stated that he and Quinn had been in partnership. Ho had ottered Quirm £50 jfor his share of the business. Quinn said he would not accept that amount, and Mr Bowdon had been employed as valuer. "Witness had never said that ho would take the goods on the rmionnt that Mr Bowden arrived at. Quinn had never so id
that the hay was his own; it had been carted and stacked during the partnership. By Mr Orbell: Each of the partners collected the accounts. He had sent the accounts out in the .name of C. Quirk because Quinn had walked out of the business. He had not instructed his clerk to send out the bills solely in his own namii.
His Worship -gave v a verdict ■ for. plaintiff for £50 10s 7d, being £3 less than the claim, which he-would allow as half cost for collecting the accounts;; he would allow plaintiff £I,,being half the value of the stack of hay. and.ordered defendant to pay £2 2s Court costs, £1 solicitor's fee, and los witnesses' expenses.
Civil Cases. ' ' Edyard George Crisp (Mr Kennedy) 1 claimed' £3 3,s from John G. 1 Ilestell (Mr Acland). Mr Kennedy asked for an order for payment to bo made. The case was adjourned to allow defendant time to. file a defence.
Thomas Crooks (Mr Buchanan), applied for an order to be made, against George Spicer for the payment of £27 8s 6d. —Defendant stated that judgment had boon given against him for rent; He could- not pay the- money. He was at present earning £2 17s per week. He was married and had four. children to keep. His wife was purphasing,, a house on terms. —An order foij the "payment of 2s 6d weekly was made. , ,
Permanent link to this item
MAGISTERIAL., Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXXIII, Issue 8817, 13 March 1914
MAGISTERIAL. Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXXIII, Issue 8817, 13 March 1914
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.